Comments on: Disabled man banned from having sex with male partnerhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/
PinkNews Gay news, reviews and comment from Europe's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans news serviceTue, 03 Mar 2015 22:55:00 +0000hourly1By: de Villiershttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-165050
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:06:25 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-165050I posted the above message on the wrong board.
]]>By: de Villiershttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-165049
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:05:46 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-165049- I should say that we often agree with each other, although that may be because we are both on the right. Here, however, the view of the continental right, or what is accepted for the continental right, appears to diverge from the English right.
]]>By: Irishttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164617
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:01:17 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164617“What changed for them to take action?”

Interesting question, Jock, We can only speculate as we don’t know, but the fact that ‘Kieron’ is mentioned would make me guess that there was something different about this relationship or the circumstances. Just my opinion. For example, Alan’s partner could have been at a very different level of mental capacity, or one of the two of them could have tried to end the physical contact, or a problem arose when one of them assumed that other people would be just as keen as their partner.

Those are guesses from me, of course, but they’re based on situations that I’ve come across. There are many more possible scenarios, including a change in Alan’s living arrangements that meant he acted differently to previously and it was felt necessary to intervene for his sake.

“I have to say why at 41 years old? What changed for them to take action?

Attention was only rised after reports of inappropriate behaviour towards children but no action.

Action was only taken when it was revealed he has a relationship with a man.

It’s as if they’re saying it wasn’t bad enough when with children but oh another man, no we better take action because he don’t know his own mind. As if being with a man was the last straw.

What about the other 20 years he presumably had some kind of sex drive.”

People’s behaviour changes over time. It could have worsened or perhaps no-one responded to him. Maybe he was not exploited or it was ignored by authorities. Many people develop sex addictions later in life – why could the same type of thing not apply to this man? Behaviour varies over time, in all of us.

“The council failed because action should have been taken after the children reports so I can understand why this looks homophobic. I’m not saying it is mind but can see why people think it.”

How has the Council failed? And how do you know they didn’t take any action when children became involved? A judgement is only the last stage, all manner of measures could have been taken before this.

I don’t understand why anyone could think this is homophobic. You are merely giving the nutters on here some sense of justification for their hysteria.

“Why you feel that someone’s disagreement means they have some ‘agenda’ going or otherwise has anything against you (other than being annoyed at repeatedly being insulted by you, or reading others being insulted by you over and again, for no other reason than daring to voice an opinion contrary to yours) will forever remain beyond me.”

You have shown you have an agenda by making numerous attempts to falsely accuse me of being anti-women and anti-trans. Repeating the same crap over and over again as if it will somehow make me or others accept your irrational, slanderous accusations as truth. I don’t insult individuals: I mock individuals expressing far-fetched, poory-informed and, sometimes, dangerous opinions. I have to address the individual, so I use their name. Someone has to counter these idiots – or do you suggest that every time Stephen Green or Nick Griffin makes an outlandish, scaremongering statement we just ignore him and don’t contest his views? This is a debating forum, what on earth did you think it was?

As you can have one agenda quite clearly in motion, why not others? From your post about your relative, you have tried to portray yourself as caring and compassionate, when actually this isn’t about your will to protect a relative’s sexuality, it’s about what you would want for yourself if you – as you are now – were in that situation. Which is irrelevant given that you are not being assessed unde the provisions Mental Capacity Act on the same grounds as this Alan chap because you do not have such disabilities.

If your relative was fulfilling the same criteria that led to Alan being prevented (NOT banned, as you keep insisting), then you would be doing her a great disservice by fighting an identical judgement that seeks to protect her. In fact, you would probably be putting her in danger, which just shows how your motives are not for her protection at all, but to fulfil your own brand of selfishness.

You have a rather different view of freedom and fairness to the majority of people on here and, clearly, our law makers. But then most nutters do – murderers, paedophiles, thieves…..they all think it’s ‘their right’ to follow their natural instincts and do whatever they please. What makes you any different?

]]>By: Jock S. Traphttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164532
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:58:26 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164532I have to say why at 41 years old? What changed for them to take action?

Attention was only rised after reports of inappropriate behaviour towards children but no action.

Action was only taken when it was revealed he has a relationship with a man.

It’s as if they’re saying it wasn’t bad enough when with children but oh another man, no we better take action because he don’t know his own mind. As if being with a man was the last straw.

What about the other 20 years he presumably had some kind of sex drive.

The council failed because action should have been taken after the children reports so I can understand why this looks homophobic. I’m not saying it is mind but can see why people think it.

No. You do not. You are not required to keep repeating anything. But neither is anyone here required to agree with you or accept your take on this or any situation. Why you feel that someone’s disagreement means they have some ‘agenda’ going or otherwise has anything against you (other than being annoyed at repeatedly being insulted by you, or reading others being insulted by you over and again, for no other reason than daring to voice an opinion contrary to yours) will forever remain beyond me.

And, along those lines, while you are not required to continue repeating anything, I am not required to respond to you any longer, on this or any other thread, now or at any time in the future.

]]>By: TheSuburbanBihttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164515
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:18:10 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164515Spanner, age is not irrelevant. A disabled adult with a low IQ is not a child. I have a disabled family member roughly my own age, who has a low IQ and severe disabilities. The need to care for and protect her over the years and decades, including the need to protect her sexually, has been a big concern for the family and the agencies that help care for her. But no one has forgotten that she is now a woman, a middle aged woman at that, not a child. And the respect, care and protection she is afforded as a grown woman with adult desires and impulses are not the same as she received when she was a child with a child’s physical, mental and emotional development respective to her disabilities.

Adults have a sexuality, even disabled adults, no matter how severe their disabiltiies, and the care and protection afforded to them have to be made with their age and development in mind. But they are not children and the constant comparison of them to children does not help people make the right decisions for them at the different stages of their lives.

That is all notagain seemed to be saying when he sadi, “Everyone has the right to a loving relationship and even meaningless intercourse if they prefer. No matter what their IQ is.” — it is, therefore, entirely unfair and inflamatory to accuse him of condoning paedophilia.

]]>By: Spannerhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164503
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:46:30 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164503notagain “Everyone has the right to a loving relationship and even meaningless intercourse if they prefer. No matter what their IQ is.”

By that statement, I assume you condone paedophilia? That is exactly the same principle. Sex with children is forbidden in order to protect them as they are considered not responsible for their actions. Likewise with this man. The age factor is irrelevant, it is the principle that is important.

Again, well said. But it’s ok, you’re a woman, I’m sure the SuburbanBi won’t condemn you for your view as much as she would moi:)

]]>By: Irishttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164475
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:58:18 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164475TheSurburbanBi – I don’t know if it is the same council, but, as I said, each case is different and disabled people differ greatly so, if it was, it’s more likely that Alan was treated differently not because of his sexuality but because of his capacity to understand and his particular living situation and care package.
]]>By: mmmmmmmmhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164471
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:51:53 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164471SBML

“To quote “Although he knew what a condom was he was not able to put one on properly on a prosthetic penis – he put it on inside out so it could not be rolled down.”

This does not indicate that he was taught to use it, only that he knew what it was and a rough understanding of how to deploy it. If anything it shows that he hasn’t been taught, and if he has then not taught enough. However the judgement doesn’t say how many times he was allowed to try and put the condom on the prosthetic. Nor if he was asked to put it on the prosthetic or if he was just given the condom and left to put it on the most obvious object.”

Aside from this specifically being a sign that he is unable to understand how to put on a condom, this is just one point. There are many others that were considered also. You are making out this prevention order has been given out because of just ONE thing.

“but that the out and out ban on his having sex, due to his not understanding safe sex, seems a crude and insensitive instrument.”

Again, you show your lack of understanding. He has not been BANNED. Those with the responsibility for his care have been afforded the possibility of PREVENTING him from having sex. These are NOT the same thing. A prevention order is not a permanent ban. do I have to keep repeating that? Even then, a total ban on SOME individuals may be necessary, depending on the seriousness of the health (and other) risks stemming from their sexual activity. If you are totally blind, you are not allowed to drive. Are you going to tell me that this is unfair and violates that person’s human rights? All these things depend on circumstances and you have failed to take note of that.

“Despite reading the entire ruling and dispite the persistent policing of any dissent from that opinion that at least one poster on this thread has insisted upon — those of us who see a problem with this ruling are not speaking from our wayward hysteria but rather an understanding that well-meaning people in councils and learned judges can still get things wrong.”

None of us said Councils couldn’t get it wrong. But we just don’t see that they have in this case – hence why we all read the ruling first (unlike some I could mention). Even with all the facts of the case clearly pointing to an absence of homophobia, your speculative and disproportionately suspicious mind is determined to prove otherwise. You’ll be waiting a long time. What is your agenda exactly? I do not remotely believe you genuinely care about this man’s ineterest, it is something much more to do with your own ideas of freedom.

This isn’t about dissent, this is about common sense and rational thought – clearly alien concepts to people like you.

“They are not imune to, as Jane Fae puts it, the “ickiness” some people still have about same-sex relationships and can feel that one is more risky, potentially abusive and dangerous to a vulnerable person than a straight relationship.”

Again, you are speculating that they have an issue with same sex relationships when there is NO evidence of this. It’s a supposition. Intimiating bigotry and discomfort. Baseless conspiracy theories. Where is the evidence that supports your claim? You can’t make unfounded accusations like that. If you really feel so strongly, then you’d do well to get off your backside and get involved in the legal process to find out more. This comparison with the man flown to Amsterdam is pointless as none of us have seen the facts of the case. Until then, it’s not up for discussion – or rather your style of speculation.

“Yes, this is just an opinion, but despite some statements above, it is not an ill-informed one and the people who are pausing to criticise this ruling have genuine concerns and the right to voice them.”

It is an opinion and thankfully opinions can be dismissed by those who do not have the same bizarre agenda. Your ‘concern’ seems to stem purely from an innate compulsion to skew just about everything towards bigotry for the sake of it. If you can prove homophobia you can them claim some level of discrimination to yourself because you are from the same community. That is opportunistic and sick. I can well imagine you are the same with everyone else. If a white man says he prefers Phil Neville to Rio Ferdinand, you’ll say it’s racis, not because he prefers one playing style over the other. If a man prefers Des Lynham to Clare Balding, you’ll say it’s homophobic or sexist, not because he prefers one style of presenting over another. There is a persistent pulse of this kind coming from a minority of fringe nutters in our society who are paranoid and obsessed with conspiracy. And it isn’t welcome because it makes us all look bad – people stereotype easily and I’d rather the likes of you didn’t make things worse for us.

If you were ‘genuinely’ concerned, you would have raised specific, pertinent questions in a dignified manner. As opposed to screeching and speculating and painting yourself out to be a panic merchant. Why don’t you just run into a football stadium and shout fire while you’re at it?

]]>By: TheSuburbanBihttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164459
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:12:44 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164459Can anyone confirm whether or not this is the same council (Newcastle) that paid for a heterosexual disabled man to go to Amsterdam to have sex with female prostitiutes? One source is claiming it’s the same one.

I recall the Amsterdam story, but only that one other source has listed that it was this same council that is now denying a disabled man the right to have sex with another man.

If it is the same council, this definitely shows a difference in attitude in relation, not to having sex, but to having straight vs gay sex — which may be where the concern that homophobia is playing a role is coming from. If it is not the same council, the fact that such different decisions can be arrived at under similar circumstances can cause people to pause and ask questions.

The social worker for the straight disabled man was quoted as saying: “Wouldn’t you prefer that we can control this, guide him, educate him, support him to understand the process and ultimately end up satisfying his needs in a secure, licensed place where his happiness and growth as a person is the most important thing?”

I believe all some people here are saying is that the same attitude could have been taken with this 41 yr old man who had and wants to continue his relationship with a male partner — but that the out and out ban on his having sex, due to his not understanding safe sex, seems a crude and insensitive instrument.

Despite reading the entire ruling and dispite the persistent policing of any dissent from that opinion that at least one poster on this thread has insisted upon — those of us who see a problem with this ruling are not speaking from our wayward hysteria but rather an understanding that well-meaning people in councils and learned judges can still get things wrong. They are not imune to, as Jane Fae puts it, the “ickiness” some people still have about same-sex relationships and can feel that one is more risky, potentially abusive and dangerous to a vulnerable person than a straight relationship.

Yes, this is just an opinion, but despite some statements above, it is not an ill-informed one and the people who are pausing to criticise this ruling have genuine concerns and the right to voice them.

]]>By: SadButMadLadhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164451
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:19:48 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164451@ mmmmmmmm – Do you think they didn’t show him how to use one? Read the bloody judgement. They did and he had no understanding of what it was used for or how it was deployed!

To quote “Although he knew what a condom was he was not able to put one on properly on a prosthetic penis – he put it on inside out so it could not be rolled down.”

This does not indicate that he was taught to use it, only that he knew what it was and a rough understanding of how to deploy it. If anything it shows that he hasn’t been taught, and if he has then not taught enough. However the judgement doesn’t say how many times he was allowed to try and put the condom on the prosthetic. Nor if he was asked to put it on the prosthetic or if he was just given the condom and left to put it on the most obvious object.

Do you think they didn’t show him how to use one? Read the bloody judgement. They did and he had no understanding of what it was used for or how it was deployed!

I am so sick of these inane comments from people who obviously haveb’t read the finer details.

]]>By: ginpithttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164437
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:41:33 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164437Nathan’s attitude to the disabled is even more antiquated than the COP’s. They do present challenging problems~ but most of these arise because they are emphatically NOT the same as ‘an 8 year old’.
And if Alan could learn as much about sex with another man as he already had, mightn’t it have been worthwhile trying to show him how to use a condom?
]]>By: johnhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/08/disabled-man-banned-from-having-sex-with-male-partner/comments/#comment-164393
Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:59:00 +0000http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=22579#comment-164393In a ruling described as “homophobic” and “a denial of the rights of disabled people”,

But who of significance has said this? It’s the first line and it seems to suggest there is somekind of dispute or appeal against the decision…anybody can say anything on a blog or a comment page of PN…..can we have names , orgs that are actually describing this as homophobic and against the rights of disable people…the line suggest it’s the general opinion of experts and I can’t see any expert saying this!

Do you honestly, really, truly think by referring to a Downs woman as a woman with Downs syndrome somehow changes the realities of the condition? If you’d bothered to read the posts you’d have understood that my sister had Downs syndrome, this is not something I am uninformed about. To be honest, that is all I need to even mention.

As for not being able to undesrtand AT ALL, yes, some of these people cannot actually understand what’s going on AT ALL. Hence why SOME of them are sterilised. Not ALL, but SOME. I never said people with Downs syndrome were ALL the same, that is YOUR petty-minded interpretation. Had you bothered to read the entire thread, you would have seen how the discussion on that subject progressed. Do your homework properly before you start making accusations.

So before you start giving me all your politically correct, self-righteous, disingenuous bleeding-heart crap again, perhaps YOU ought to go and figure out a few things.

Try a PERSON (a human being) who has Down’s Syndrome. After all we are all people first.

‘a very short lifespan, low IQ and ability to grasp the seriousness of many aspects of daily life – what kind of life will the mother and child have? A very terrifying one probably.’

Not everyone who has Down’s syndrome has a learning disability and even if an individual does have a learning disability it does not mean that the are not able to function as a part of society. Many people who have Down’s Syndrome and people who have a learning disability are equally capable of being parents even if some may need additional support. Both parent and child can have a very happy and fullfilling life which would be made better without the ignorance of people who judge them.

‘The mother will probably only live until about 30 years of age, leaving the child motherless at a very young age.’

Where did you get this information from? The lifespan of an individual with Down’s Syndrome may be shorter than that of the general population but many sources place the avergae life expectancy at around 60 years.

‘Do you think it’s fair we let a Downs woman, who has no real understanding of contraception, get pregnant? Be terrified in pregnancy, because she isn’t able AT ALL to understand what is happening.’

I think you mean a woman with Down’s syndrome and like I stated before, not everyone who has Down’s syndrome is the same. Isn’t able ‘AT ALL’ to understand what is happening? Says who? I’m guessing that is just a statement based purely on your lack of knowledge or awareness of Down’s Syndrome and Mental Capacity issues.